Some sports media have suggested in recent days that the Eagles purposely leaked negative information about DeSean Jackson to lessen the blow of his release. On NJ.com, Eliot Shorr-Parks and A.J. Perez released the story entitled, "DeSean Jackson's gang connections troubling to Eagles". Within an hour of that report, Jackson was released.
The NJ.com report cited a source within the Eagles' organization as providing information that Jackson had off-field ties to gang members:
Rather, sources close to Jackson and within the Eagles' organization say, it originally was Jackson's off-field behavior that concerned the front office. A bad attitude, an inconsistent work ethic, missed meetings and a lack of chemistry with head coach Chip Kelly were the original reasons for his fall from grace, sources told NJ.com.
And when the Eagles looked more deeply into why Jackson was missing meetings, they found that his friends were becoming a more powerful — and negative — influence in his life.
Then, suddenly, the Eagles had even more serious concerns when they were revealed by NJ.com — Jackson's continued association with reputed Los Angeles street gang members who have been connected to two homicides since 2010.
Would the revelation of this "association" be an attempt to discredit Jackson? One report says that the NFL Players Association would like to know if Jackson was intentionally smeared by the team:
And now things just got real interesting: NFLPA wants to know if #Eagles smeared DeSean Jackson
— 97.3 ESPN FM (@973espn) April 4, 2014
If the Eagles intentionally smeared Jackson, they could be susceptible to a lawsuit. But the Eagles doing that simply makes no sense.
The Eagles themselves have said absolutely nothing negative about Jackson. The NJ.com report notes "sources in the organization" that are unnamed. Technically, a janitor sweeping Lincoln Financial Field is a source inside the organization. Upon Jackson's release they indicated that the decision was based upon refletion "over the course of the offseason". If challenged on the matter, the Eagles could easily show they acted appropriately.
As Jason Whitlock points out on ESPN.com, the Eagles had plenty of reasons to release Jackson, simply based on his performance and behavior around the organization:
What is indisputable, based on reports of others and my own reporting, is that Jackson has been a major headache for every coaching staff since his days at Cal. He is selfish and unreliable. He has difficulty committing to a team concept. He is uninterested in practicing hard. He coasted through an entire season because he didn't want to risk injury in a contract year.
You can't be Allen Iverson on a football team. And even Iverson got run out of Philadelphia when he was still a spectacular talent because the Sixers got tired of the headache and his bad attitude.
What the Eagles did to Jackson isn't remotely unprecedented, racist or unfair. Coaches don't like lazy, disrespectful, cancerous massive headaches. Daniel Snyder does. That's why he learned nothing from his Albert Haynesworth experience and Washington was first in line to sign Jackson. Snyder is a billionaire fan with a team. Kelly is a football coach.
Was the timing of the release peculiar in relation to the NJ.com report? Maybe a little. It cannot be a total coincidence that less than an hour after the report appeared on NJ.com Jackson was released. But, realize this: if Parks and Perez were doing their due diligence as journalists, they would have reached out to the Eagles for comment on their story. The Eagles had to know that it was coming.
Even before the NJ.com report, word got out that the Eagles were trying to trade Jackson. But, Jackson's inflated contract was not one that could be easily moved. It is one thing to give Jackson a sizable contract; it is another to give up a draft pick, too. The Eagles were not spreading gang stories while they were shopping Jackson; to do so would only hurt their ability to trade Jackson. As time went on, they likely learned there was little to no trade market for Jackson and they probably would have released Jackson prior to the draft. The NJ.com story may have just been what put them over the edge.
Finally, if the Eagles were indeed responsible for exhibiting improper behavior and soiled Jackson's reputation, the NFLPA would have to prove that Jackson was damaged financially by such behavior. Jackson's quick, lucrative contract with the Washington Redskins with $16 million in guaranteed money represents more guaranteed money than he had left in his Eagles deal. In just January, Jackson said that he wanted to negotiate a new contract. Releasing Jackson, they gave him the ability to negotiate whatever contract he wanted.
